Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 336 (JHR)

Jagdeo Munda v. State Of Bihar

2002-03-12

SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA

body2002
ORDER S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J. 1. This application has been preferred by the petitioners against the order contained in Memo No. 634 dated 11th July. 2000 issued by the Executive Engineer (Mechanical). Road Construction Department, Mechanical Division. Ranch!, whereby and where under giving reference of letter Nos. 1115 dated 4-2-99; 570 dated 5-6-2000 and oral order issued/given by the Chief Engineer (Mechanical). Road Construction Department, Patna the Petitioners have been reverted to their substantive post from which they were earlier promoted to the post in question. The sole ground shown therein that the order was issued because of paucity of fund not allotted to the Division by the State. 2. According to the counsel for the petitioners, the order of reversion cannot be issued from retrospective date as made vide order dated 11th July. 2000 and it there is paucity of fund, instead of reversion, the Respondents should have, released fund for payment in favour of petitioners. 3. The petitioners have enclosed relevant enclosures to suggest that their cases were considered by the Circle Level Establishment Committee in its meeting dated 26th September. 1995 (Annexures 1. 2 & 4) and they having found fit for promotion to higher post, they were promoted vide Order No. 222 dated 28th September, 1995 (An-nexure-5), issued by the Superintending Engineer (Mechanical) Mechanical Circle. Road Construction Department. Ranchi. Such order of promotion was issued after due approval of the Chief Engineer, vide letter No. 309 dated 8th December. 1996 and the posts against which the petitioners were working were abolished (videAnnexure-5). 4. The petitioners 1 and 2 were promoted as compiling Clerk whereas petitioners 3 and 4 were promoted as Store Clerk. 5. The counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the substantive pasts against which the petitioners were earlier working having abolished, there was no occasion to revert the petitioners to such non-existent posts. 6. In the counter-affidavit the Respondent merely taken plea that the promotions of petitioners were granted to such higher post by Superintending Engineer. Mechanical Circle. Road Construction Department. Ranchi he without considering the seniority list and in absence of sanctioned posts. As such it was illegal. 7. However, no such ground shown in the impugned order dated llth July, 2000. nor there is anything on the record to suggest that the petitioners were noticed prior to their reversion. 8. Mechanical Circle. Road Construction Department. Ranchi he without considering the seniority list and in absence of sanctioned posts. As such it was illegal. 7. However, no such ground shown in the impugned order dated llth July, 2000. nor there is anything on the record to suggest that the petitioners were noticed prior to their reversion. 8. For the reasons aforesaid, the order contained in Memo No. 634 dated 11th July, 2000 having issued in violation of rules of natural justice and on non est ground, said order is set aside so far as it relates to the petitioners. 9. The Respondents are given liberty to give proper notice to the concerned persons including the petitioners and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 10. The writ petition stands disposed of.